Out Link

Giants Must Scrap Zone Scheme

Link Recommended by admin on December 22nd, 2011 at 10:10 am

from Rich Conforti of Ultimate NYG:

Enough is enough. It’s an issue that’s been highlighted on this Giants blog again. And again. And again.And again.And again.

The Giants Tampa 2 defense seems to get a bit more porous with each passing week. For whatever reason, this team’s personnel is not built for zone coverage. Whether it be through constantly biting on play action fakes or just sheer inability to adjust and react, the Giants’ back seven continues to look lost in zone. Game after game we see linebackers at the second level allowing receivers to cross right in front of their face for easy completions in the ten yard range.
  • Anonymous

    The other problem is that this soft ‘bend don’t break’ coverage is actually bending AND breaking, allowing quarterbacks to send these pop-fly lolly pops to their wide open receivers for an easy 6 (i.e. Romo to Bryant). I mean, I guess I somewhat understand that zone coverage is implemented when the defense simply doesn’t have the talent/experience on D to match up effectively. But when guys named Whitehurst, Young, and Grossman can effortlessly drive down the field on us, it’s time for a change. It’s time to man-up, literally and figuratively.

  • Dcrugby

    The headline needs to read “Giants Must Scrap Fewell and Scheme”

  • S Leong

    Everyone has known this since last year. The question has always been, “Will it ever change?” Answer is no.

  • http://www.facebook.com/Bradscheiner Brad Scheiner

    Get rid of Perry Fewell he has been terrible since he came to the Giants.

  • J. Williams

    Yeah. Right…. That’s the problem. The zone scheme… Because zone schemes have never been successful in the NFL. Where do they get off thinking they can win using the tampa 2? Who’s ever done that?

    Wrong.

    The issue is not the scheme, the issue is the LBs. If you show me a team where the only LB drafted higher than the 4th round is a 3-4 buck in a 4-3 defense, I will show you a team that, even with the best DC or HC is not viable to win the big one.

    And it’s hilarious to me how some people will talk about blown coverages underneath, open running lanes, inablility to cover TEs, and QBs getting loose and not mention the word LB. It’s like some of you guys just started watching football last month. Liek you don’t understand history or precedent.

    Here’s a bit of trivia: I believe precedent is everything in the NFL. Name me one playoff team last year that didn’t have a special player at the LB? Just one?

    • Anonymous

      Totally agree about the LB’s – I think the rookies this year have potential, but what the Giants need is to sign a proven NFL quality LB, I don’t even know who th available ’12 FA
      LB’s are but IMO there will be someone who is an upgrade. I do think with the current roster they’re much better off playing man coverage these last 2 games.

      • J. Williams

        Perry,

        Should be several good LBs available since a lot of FAs signed 1 year deals. I’ve really got my eye on Vontaze Burflict though. Especially if Washington drafts RG3, in which the NFC would have 2 rushing QBs and one who is a pretty good scrambler and roll-out guy. I know Tulloch only signed a 1 year deal with the Lions and he was the best FA last season.

        I’m not necessarily against man coverage – I’d love to see Prince in bump and run. But switching a scheme in week 16? Just seems a bit far-fetched in terms of a solution. Probably at this point, the best case scenario – removing myself as a fan – would be for the G-men to lose out and get as high a pick as possible. Because as much as I want them to make the playoffs, they’re not viable as a playoff team with no enforcer in the middle of this defense.

        A mixture, as I suggested in last off-season would be a good idea. Putting man coverage on the best WR of the opposite team.

    • Rick H

      So are you saying that the Giants don’t have the LBs to properly run the Tampa 2 zone, but Fewell is still doing it anyway?  What does that say?   Denver doesn’t have a QB that can zing it like Brady, so Fox puts in a different plan.  You adapt to what you have.  How are we adapting?

      • J. Williams

        Rick,

        I’m saying the Giants don’t have any LBs at all worth mention. Def. some good future players. If the Giants were running a 3-4 this group right now still wouldn’t work and you would still have the same issues.

        Basically what I’m saying is: Yeah. Adjust. Throw out the coach. Throw out the DC. Get a new scheme. But you’re kidding yourself if you think that the defensive inefficiencies are not about the LB position. And you’re kidding yourself if you think you can win in the NFL without drafting any LBs high. It’s a joke.

  • Anonymous

    I wish the giants had Pierce 2.0.  Steady and smart play and QB on D.   Motivator and leader.  Bring in a Vet but keep Goff.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Michael-Farsetta/525920328 Michael Farsetta

    I didn’t even know the giants had a scheme. I thought they played a unique zone that just doesn’t cover anybody. FEWELL MUST GO.